fatdudeonabike wrote:I like the disclaimer about the possibility of dead heat rules applying on the question of whether he'll admit doping...Not quite sure how that can end in a dead heat...

You forgot the most common defences of scoundrels...

I'm not saying it did happen, I'm not saying it didn't happen, I just can't recall

Maybe that count's as a dead heat ?

Another possibility : he's had this long-standing mental illness on account of his difficult childhood, and there's actually two Lances' in there. One of them admits to drug-taking, but the other bloke (who appeared before the court and denied doping) does not admit to drug-taking.

Pretty sure the bookies would have to rank that as a dead-heat.

And it's why we need to see him in front of Dr Phil rather than Oprah - so that Lance can get thehelp we all know he sadly needs.

Cheers

WombatK

Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us -Jerry Garcia

On the interview and no appearance fees, if Oprah's team specifically reports it then it is probably true though we are also used to spin so it is possible that financial contributions could still be made to organisations or groups that indirectly benefit Armstrong.

On the betting, it would be interesting seeing the odds for standing ovations (though I understand it is a private interview and there is no audience). Also, how often these words are used: hero, survivor, inspiration, believe, chance. Even this set; fooled, cheated, manipulated, misled, lied.

Also, the chances that Oprah endorses Armstrong (whatever the outcome) and believes in him.

AUbicycles wrote:On the betting, it would be interesting seeing the odds for standing ovations (though I understand it is a private interview and there is no audience). Also, how often these words are used: hero, survivor, inspiration, believe, chance.

You forgot miracle! You can't forget miracle!Thats a perfectly justifiable way to justify beating a field full of drug cheats when you're clean!

AUbicycles wrote:On the betting, it would be interesting seeing the odds for standing ovations (though I understand it is a private interview and there is no audience). Also, how often these words are used: hero, survivor, inspiration, believe, chance.

You forgot miracle! You can't forget miracle!Thats a perfectly justifiable way to justify beating a field full of drug cheats when you're clean!

While we are all taking at face value that Lance's desire is to be able to compete at a high level there is another likely purpose.

Some many years back he discussed more than once the possibility of entering politics. It is likely that Lance is being less than honest in his stated reasons.

Shock! Horror! Telling a fib? Never.

If that is his real intent then it would not be a good look to state it as such. Dressing up the attempt in the form it is being peddled reduces the chance of someone suggesting publicly that it is all an attempt at being let in from the cold as a first step towards politics.

(Notwithstanding his more recent denials of interest in political office.)

greyhoundtom wrote:I'm still finding it difficult to get my head around why LA would agree to a so called no holds barred interview, as I simply can’t see what he could possibly gain by doing it.

It's pretty obvious all along.1) Oprah and similar interviews have always been associated with the term "no holds barred". It's marketing. How else are they going to call it? "Some topics off limit interview"?2) LA is not stupid to get a David Letterman midnight interview. Much better with Oprah.

I have thinking about the media buildup around the Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky scandal a bit as this builds up and wouldn't be suprised if it fizzles out like that - however Clinton (Bill) was able to redeem himself in the public eye and is very much admired despite wrong-doings. Armstrong certainly wants a piece of that.

In cycling, Eric Zabel did well for himself after his confession, Jan Ullrich didn't. Contador had done well-enough for himself and I havn't heard from the guy who did a blood transfusion with dogs blood again, so he probably didn't do well.

AUbicycles wrote:I have thinking about the media buildup around the Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky scandal a bit as this builds up and wouldn't be suprised if it fizzles out like that - however Clinton (Bill) was able to redeem himself in the public eye and is very much admired despite wrong-doings. Armstrong certainly wants a piece of that.

Their sins are poles apart, and Joe Public understood it was a witch-hunt against Clinton, a side-show, which is why his approvals went up. Armstrong's sins are inextricably tied to what made him, and that is why it will break him.

Who is online

About the Australian Cycling Forums

The largest cycling discussion forum in Australia for all things bike; from new riders to seasoned bike nuts, the Australian Cycling Forums are a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.